The case that legalized abortion in Vermont featured “Jacqueline R.,” an unmarried server who wanted to end her pregnancy, and an OB/GYN resident at the University of Vermont named Jackson Beecham.
The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade set back a century of American intellectual and scientific progress, empowering a Christian theocracy bent on its superstitions dictating the rule of law.
The feminism of my generation, flawed though it has been, is not dead. In the words of the beloved civil rights leader Fanny Lou Hamer, we are simply “sick and tired of being sick and tired.”
Let’s expand the current proposed Reproductive Liberty Amendment to Vermont’s Constitution (which now addresses only women’s reproductive rights) to include same-sex marriage, contraceptive rights and the other rights now in Clarence Thomas’s range-finder.
The claim that the court knows what the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment thought might be called the Biggest Lie, because unlike Trump’s, this one actually worked.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision Friday, Vermont Access to Reproductive Freedom has received over $100,000 in donations.
Charity Clark and Rory Thibault said they would work with lawmakers to take additional steps, using existing and new legislation, to make Vermont a “safe harbor” for people seeking an abortion — whether or not those people live in the state.
Vermont’s Proposal 5 would give all Vermonters the right to “reproductive autonomy.” But a federal ban could supersede that.
An unknown person or people smashed seven windows, according to Capitol Police, and spraypainted an abortion-related message on the front portico.
Close to 1,000 Vermonters turned out at protests Friday afternoon and evening in Bennington, Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier and Rutland — denouncing the decision and calling for Vermont to further protect abortion rights.
A constitutional amendment to guarantee sexual and reproductive freedoms will be on the ballot in Vermont this November.
How has this largely trusted American institution so quickly deteriorated into depravity? How did its majority come to rely on bumper sticker taglines, social media tropes, and arguments so weak and sloppy that they wouldn’t pass muster in a law school?
The government needs to respect the religious, spiritual beliefs of all its citizens and residents. No one individual or religious institution has a monopoly on morality.
In the Supreme Court, when should stare decisis justify continuing a ruling in force, and when should a questionable case be overturned in light of changing facts, arguments and consequences?
